# OK, back to Kenpo

Joined: November 24th, 2004, 9:07 pm
A couple of years ago I posted this question and, as I recall, not many responded to it. Why few responded I couldn't tell you because the question had all the earmarks for the P of A (paralysis of analysis) faction to have at it. Anyway, here's the question(s):

We hear a lot about angles in EPAK. For the most part this came about in the early 1970s with the arrival of Big Red, which contained our more well defined vocabulary and terminology. With regard to "angles," both students and instructors now talked about the Angle of Disturbance, Angle of Deviation, Angle of Entry, Angle of Execution, Angle of Incidence, and the Complimentary Angle. Prior to Mr. Parker introducing these terms into our language, in most cases when he was explaining a particular relationship between himself and his opponent, he would simply say, "Right from here."

But now it's early 1970s and our instruction manual talks about angles, which Websters defines as: "The figure formed by two lines extending from the same point or by two surfaces diverging from the same line." That's interesting, isn't it?

Imagine you're an instructor and you're teaching a new high school age student, who happens to be a wizard in geometry. At some point in the technique you're teaching, you mention the "Angle of Entry," and your student asks, "What's the angle? I mean, what's its numerical value? And what are the two lines that intersect? Does this have to do with this centerline you just mentioned?"

When I've asked most instructors this question, they respond with something similar to, "Well, when you're talking about things like the Angle of Entry and Angle of Incidence and things like that, there really isn't a numerical value and the focus really isn't on any lines, but rather positioning."

Really? Personally I'm not sure. I mean, Mr. Parker put together what is considered a science with clearly defined terminology. Anyway, given the standard definition of angle, how do you explain to a mathematically bright student the values of these angles and the relationships of these two lines that intersect? Can you take all of our techniques that mention these various angles and clearly describe to your student what each means and give your student a clear understanding of the parameters? Or do you have another way of explaining exactly what these physical relationships are? As a footnote, we all know what the definitions are of all these angles in our terminology. That's not what I'm asking. I'm asking for an explaination of the angles given Websters definition, which is the accepted definition in the science of geometry.

Salute

Joined: April 13th, 2007, 9:05 pm
The purpose of Mr. Parkers Encyclopedia of Kenpo was not to describe terms as they appear in Webster's dictionary. Webster had already done that. It was created to be a guide to how those terms are used in regard to the art of Ed Parkers Kenpo.

There are many terms that defy Websters. Marriage of Gravity for example; what does Webster have to say about that one? Or how about the word ANCHOR? Does Webster define it as weighing down the elbow or buttocks for better leverage, coverage or control? I dont think so.

I agree that angles can have a numbers attached to them in the field of engineering, architecture, etc., but to say youre asking for an explanation of the angles given by Websters definition, because that is the accepted definition in the science of geometry is to devalue the entire Encyclopedia of Kenpo.

So, lets take the term ATTITUDE. In the field of physiology I expect it has to do with a persons personality and outlook on life, so if I take flying lessons am I to assume that a planes ATTITUDE is the planes personality?

And what about homographs, words that are spelled the same, but are pronounced differently and have entirely different meanings. What is a neutral BOW according to Webster? We BOW to the emperor, but I once got a BOW (and arrows) for my birthday?

I can USE many more examples or I can just say whats the USE of even trying.

Terms used by Mr. Parker seldom have the same meaning as those same terms in Websters Dictionary. THAT IS WHY HE COMPILED THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF KENPO.

But Tom my dear friend, I do wish that Mr. Webster had been correct when he defined the term RICH, because if he had been correct, Id be RICH instead of just . . . RICH

Joined: November 24th, 2004, 9:07 pm
>The purpose of Mr. Parkers Encyclopedia of Kenpo was not to describe terms as they appear in Webster's dictionary. Webster had already done that.<<br>
OK, I'm with you. Let's agree then that Mr. Parker chose not to adhere to Websters definitions of English words, but instead had his own.

>It was created to be a guide to how those terms are used in regard to the art of Ed Parkers Kenpo<<br>

OK, then I'll ask the same question. How would you explain these definitions of angles - using the terminology as a guide?

>There are many terms that defy Websters. Marriage of Gravity for example; what does Webster have to say about that one?<<br>
Of course Webster doesn't define those words together, but I never had a problem explaining this term to a student. Personally, I've always like Dave Hebler's definition - "Just drop your weight on the guy!"

>Or how about the word ANCHOR? Does Webster define it as weighing down the elbow or buttocks for better leverage, coverage or control? I dont think so.<<br>
Again, Webster clearly defines anchor as being a weight that restricts movement. And I don't think we as kenpoists have any problem using the word as we do.

>I agree that angles can have a numbers attached to them in the field of engineering, architecture, etc., but to say youre asking for an explanation of the angles given by Websters definition, because that is the accepted definition in the science of geometry is to devalue the entire Encyclopedia of Kenpo.<<br>
Well, what I posed was to say that IF you don't care to use Websters and/or the science of geometry's definitions and applications, and prefer to use your own - fine - then tell us what your own use is. I did offer that option in my original post.

>So, lets take the term ATTITUDE. In the field of physiology I expect it has to do with a persons personality and outlook on life, so if I take flying lessons am I to assume that a planes ATTITUDE is the planes personality?<<br>
I'm guessing you meant psychology instead of physiology? Clearly there are two separate definitions of attitude, and I would wager that we all know them and use them correctly. I think George Carlin turned these oddities into a great comedy sketch, one in which he flipped a string of cards that combines all sorts of words.

>And what about homographs, words that are spelled the same, but are pronounced differently and have entirely different meanings. What is a neutral BOW according to Webster? We BOW to the emperor, but I once got a BOW (and arrows) for my birthday?<<br>
Being a professional writer for more years than I care to remember, I do have a pretty good understanding of what you're talking about. But this isn't my question.

>I can USE many more examples or I can just say whats the USE of even trying.<<br>
So you're saying there's no use in trying to explain how Mr. Parker defined angles - although we agree that his definitions and usage were different from those commonly stated and accepted in Websters and geometry?

>Terms used by Mr. Parker seldom have the same meaning as those same terms in Websters Dictionary. THAT IS WHY HE COMPILED THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF KENPO.<<br>
OK, so I'll pose the question again: given that Mr. Parker did not use the term angles in adherance with what is commonly recognized in the English language and the science of geometry, what were his unique definitions?

>But Tom my dear friend, I do wish that Mr. Webster had been correct when he defined the term RICH, because if he had been correct, Id be RICH instead of just . . . RICH<<br>
LOL! That reminds me of a joke Bruce Lee used to tell. He'd say, "I have a rich voice... it's well off." Say, do you recall the joint seminar/workout your Ventura school and my Solvang school had in the mid-1960s? I found some photographs of that get-to-gether. I even thought of posting a few so that you could stroll down Memory Lane.

With respect

PS Don't you know that Robert is just champing at the bit over this thread and wants to post in the worse way? The door's open, Robert - jump on it.

I'll let the cat out of the bag after this post winds on for a while.

Joined: April 13th, 2007, 9:05 pm
First of all how could I forget the huge rolling grassland behind your Solvang school? I have yet to visit another school with such a view.

As for the Kenpo terms, I just do my best to understand them as Mr. Parker explained them, both in person and in his writings. As for what Webster had to say, well you can tell by my typos, I'd best stick to hitting and kicking people and leave the teaching of English to the more educated.

Always good to converse you my friend.

Joined: November 24th, 2004, 9:07 pm
>First of all how could I forget the huge rolling grassland behind your Solvang school? I have yet to visit another school with such a view.<<br>
That was really something, wasn't it? Actually the rolling hillsides were out side of the school - 180 degree view of green mountains and blue skies. Mr. Parker commented that it was the most beautiful school he'd ever been in. But - to Memory Lane, here you are - thunder and lightning!

Salute

Joined: June 15th, 2005, 3:34 am
Rich really WAS young once...

Joined: April 13th, 2007, 9:05 pm
What do you mean by - was young? Am I missing something here?

Joined: June 15th, 2005, 3:34 am
I would say, "hair", but that's actually an issue of my own more than yours. Pretty soon, the hair on my back will be the only hair I have...

Statistically, the regional average age for kicking the bucket is 77. If you're 57, that means you have 20 years left. Think for a moment about how fast the last 20 years flew by, then consider this...that's all you have left. One more lap like that, and kaput.

Now, I realize I am saying this to a man who does more in a freaking week than I do in a year, what with the lobster diving, marathon running, mountain climbing, etc. But still...

Morosely embracing the imminent dark,

D.

Joined: April 13th, 2007, 9:05 pm
Dave my dear friend,

I have always been nice and understanding toward you, because it must have been a difficult childhood during the time your head grew up and through the top of your hair.
Last edited by Rich_Hale on May 21st, 2009, 5:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Joined: June 15th, 2005, 3:34 am
run and hide before it gets worse for me.

D.